unifi_list_vpn_tunnels

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, pagination details (beyond what's in the schema), or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource and scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters. It adequately states what the tool does but lacks context on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, errors, output format) and usage guidelines. For a list operation in a complex system like UniFi, more detail would help an agent use it correctly without relying solely on the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters (siteId, offset, limit, filter). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'siteId' is required for context, which is already clear from the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('all site-to-site VPN tunnels at a site'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'unifi_list_vpn_servers' by specifying 'tunnels' rather than 'servers', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a site ID), exclusions, or comparisons to other list tools (e.g., 'unifi_list_networks' or 'unifi_list_vpn_servers'). Usage is implied by the name and description alone, with no explicit context or alternatives provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.